Rafael Benitez surprisingly named Ramires and Frank Lampard in midfield, allowing him to play three attackers, including Victor Moses, behind Demba Ba. Cesar Azpilicueta was at right-back.

United took an early lead with goals from Hernandez and Rooney, but then seemed to stop playing – and Chelsea could have won it late on.

Manchester United early lead

The home side started strongly, but the defining feature of the opening period was the lack of compactness from Chelsea. This was interesting – as always, compactness is the major thing Benitez demands from his side throughout matches, and the way Chelsea were strung out across the pitch caused them significant problems both offensively and defensively.

The lack of pressure upon Carrick contributed to the goal, of course – and his ambition to hit such a fine pass is a measure of his confidence in (according to his manager) his finest season at Manchester United. This can also be attributed to the lack of compactness, which gave Chelsea’s midfielders too much ground to cover, although it was also simply poor communication and organisation – both Ramires and Juan Mata went to pressure Tom Cleverley, leaving Carrick free. That said, the chances of being punished so directly from that position are extremely slim.

Going forward, too, Chelsea suffered in the early stages because the game was so stretched. Long balls forward to Ba were often pointless because of his lack of support – Mata stayed reasonably close, but the wide players generally started too deep.

Chelsea come into the game

Chelsea’s comeback didn’t start with the substitutions after half-time – it started after around 25 minutes when Manchester United kept conceding possession sloppily, especially within their own half. Chelsea’s midfield pressure helped, but is often appeared more like simple individual mistakes, with the frequency suggesting physical or mental exhaustion after the midweek defeat against Real Madrid. Chelsea’s passing wasn’t faultless either – Gary Cahill made a couple of needless errors in possession.

In midfield, the battle in the zone featuring Rooney, Ramires and Lampard was interesting – neither side really looked comfortable here. Rooney sometimes found space in behind them, but his lack of defensive work without the ball hinted at why Ferguson didn’t trust him to pressure Xabi Alonso in midweek, and this contributed to Chelsea gradually dominating the midfield zone.

As it happens, the Ramires-Lampard combination didn’t completely work – they took it in turns to get forward, but both appeared a little restricted with their movement. Still, with Rooney doing little without the ball, plus Oscar coming inside and Mata between the lines, often Chelsea were able to pass around Carrick and Cleverley in that zone. The knock-on effect was United’s wide players getting dragged inside to help out, which then allowed Chelsea’s full-backs to get forward. Ashley Cole and Cesar Azpilicueta both got into promising positions – the latter because Shinji Kagawa drifted inside quickly – but their crossing was poor.

Benitez changes

Chelsea's second half line-up - substitutes, or players who changed position, are highlighted

Chelsea’s goals were both related to Benitez’s substitutions. Eden Hazard was brought on for Victor Moses, with Oscar moving to the right and Hazard playing left. His beautiful curler into the far corner demonstrated his immediate impact.

But Hazard on for Moses was an obvious change because of the sheer improvement in quality. Benitez’s other key change was cleverer: John Obi Mikel replaced Lampard. On paper, that’s a defensive substitution – and the type of change Benitez would be criticised for had Chelsea not completed their comeback – but it worked brilliantly, allowing Ramires to burst forward in possession. This caused United even more problems, and in addition to his equaliser, he’d also stormed into the box similarly for a similar chance a few minutes beforehand.

It also helped that Benitez started with his attack-minded right-back Cesar Azpilicueta, rather than Branislav Ivanovic. A couple of times this season, when chasing the game, he’s been forced to waste a substitution by introducing an attacking right-back, forcing him to keep an attacker on the bench.

Chelsea’s dominance forced Ferguson to change his system – when Robin van Persie replaced Hernandez, Kagawa went left and Rooney came into the middle, but this changed little. Ferguson had previously been forced to bring on the woefully out-of-form Antonio Valencia for Nani, and later introduced Danny Welbeck for Kagawa.

Ferguson could have changed things earlier, and more dramatically. United were short in midfield for the second time within a week after an opposition coach’s changes (and of course, against Real Madrid, a red card) and Anderson was an unused substitute here. If he’d been introduced in place of Kagawa or Rooney – or even for the injured Nani just before half-time, when Chelsea’s dominance was already clear – United could have gone 4-5-1 / 4-3-3 and prevented Chelsea dominating in midfield. In the end, Chelsea recorded 15 shots to United’s nine, and 11 on target to United’s five.

Conclusion

Good substitutions or correcting initial mistakes? Benitez is such a divisive manager that his supporters and detractors will take radically different views.

As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Moses starting rather than Hazard was about rotation, and was then a natural switch to make in the second half. For an away game at Old Trafford, it was a surprise Mikel didn’t start – he’s surely the best partner for either Lampard or Ramires in a fixture like this.

However, credit should go to Benitez for making that subtle change – Mikel on for Lampard. Another manager might have thrown on Fernando Torres as a second striker, and therefore conceded the midfield ground which Chelsea were already dominating. It freed Ramires to attack United when they were exhausted, and in the end, Chelsea probably should have won the game.

Schalke v Dortmund – most spectacular and entertaining game of the European season, for me. I’m very glad you’re going to analyze it. I’m interested to see what tactical features lead to such amazing end-to-end play.

celegorma on March 11, 2013 at 3:09 pm

Leverkusen – Dortmund was rather spectacular too.

Froggen on March 11, 2013 at 7:27 pm

I was surprised you didn’t do Steaua Bucharest vs Chelsea or Tottenham vs Inter!

basic on March 11, 2013 at 12:41 pm

The valencia for nani change effectively killed the game.

Jamie on March 11, 2013 at 1:32 pm

Valencia was so woefully bad it was actually quite shocking.

Donovan on March 11, 2013 at 1:58 pm

Agreed that, bringing on Valencia for Nani, completely hurt ManU. Valencia ran himself into trouble, seemed completely bereft of ideas, and gave the ball away so much. This was the main reason why Chelski came back into the game.

brett schneider on March 11, 2013 at 6:27 pm

I think this (Valencia for Nani) is the critical thing that I haven’t seen mentioned elsewhere. Valencia was consistently closed down by multiple players — as if instructed how to contain him — and there was little evidence of clear outs for him in these positions — indicative that united didn’t adapt to the change either. We all know the limits of his one-footedness but recently he’s been much more of a liability — question is whether this is down to his form or more of an incompatibility with the team set up which is less focused on the wing this year.

@3753Cruithne on March 11, 2013 at 12:44 pm

Defied logic why Anderson wasn’t introduced either in place of one of (the clearly knackered, and profligate in possession) Carrick or Cleverley, or to help them. And also why Hernandez and Kagawa, neither of whom were involved during the week, were both withdrawn.

“Ferguson had previously been forced to bring on the woefully out-of-form Antonio Valencia for Nani”: forced?

In what sense “forced”? Perhaps Sir Odious’s choice here just emphasised Benitez’s superior use of substitutes. That’s twice in a week that old grog-nose has been outwitted by an Iberian manager.

I thought it was a compelling game, marred (for me) by seeing fine players such as Lampard and Valencia play so feebly.

Joel on March 11, 2013 at 2:13 pm

“Forced” in the sense that Nani was injured.

dearieme on March 11, 2013 at 4:53 pm

Well that’s not “forced”. You might say he was “forced” to replace Nani, but nobody forced him to use Valencia. It was just a rotten choice.

Mark on March 11, 2013 at 4:22 pm

Forced probably because Nani got injured…

Ferguson was outwitting Mourinho until the red card. Tactics and shape were spot on, the use of Welbeck to nulify Alonso, Madrid looked bereft of ideas.

F on March 12, 2013 at 1:31 pm

’sir odious’
‘old grog-nose’

My word, how neanderthal you sound.

Yep, you sure can be relied upon for objectivity(!)

One thing that is ‘compelling’ is your need to use stupid insults to criticize a manager. That is the only compelling and telling thing about your post. Just so childish, resorting to stupid name calling like that. Ruins any point you are trying to make and shows up your lack of objectivity. Look closer to home for a case of ‘marred’.

If he wanted to keep the width on the right, he needed to bring on another right winger. The only right winger on the bench being Valencia. Young is right footed but is mostly at home on the left. So if he wanted to keep the same game plan at that time, he was to an extent forced to go with Valencia.

PeeDub on March 11, 2013 at 1:36 pm

Benitez would not have been criticized by Chelsea fans for bringing Mikel on for Lampard. We’ve known for some time that the Ramires/Lampard double pivot is lacking, especially against top teams.

No. But Benitez rotated. The Carrick-Cleverley combination was chasing the game for the second half v Real, then was fielded here again. Those two, in particular, did look shattered

Scott on March 11, 2013 at 2:17 pm

So you’re comparing playing Steaua Bucarest in the Europa League to Real Madrid in the Champions League? Not to mention, being knocked out of a competition in such fashion as United were certainly takes an emotional toll.

RedMan on March 11, 2013 at 2:27 pm

No. He is comparing playing in your own backyard on Tuesday vs playing miles away in Eastern Europe on Thursday.

reg dekram on March 11, 2013 at 2:20 pm

I did not see the Chelsea game midweek so I cannot comment fairly on their performance (regarding energy). I did, however, see the United game against Madrid.

I think it would be unfair to simply say: Team X played a day later than Team Y, therefore Team Y should be ‘fresher’ for a game between the two Z days later.

There are many variables to consider that might affect mental AND physical fatigue – date of fixture included – but also: quality of opposition, magnitude/consequence of the game’s result (a 1st leg tie, or 2nd?), distance travelled. With all these things taken into account it would be unfair to dismiss Chelsea’s midweek exertions as irrelevant, but, having watched United’s performance versus Madrid, the work done throughout that match – particularly when reduced to 10 men – was enormous; Rafael in particular looked close to collapse towards the end of that fixture, and I’m sure he wasn’t alone.

Also, in the final sentence prior to the conclusion you write: “In the end, Chelsea recorded 15 shots to United’s nine, and 11 on target to United’s five.”

Is there any reason why you switched from digits to letters in this instance when writing about Chelsea/United?

Full-back on March 11, 2013 at 2:58 pm

I was surprised to see Rafael and both of Carrick and Cleverly start. We could have used Smalling and Anderson with one of Carrick and Cleverly.

On the point about digits and letters, some people follow the convention that you spell out numbers up to and including ten and use numbers for 11 and above.

First Timer on March 11, 2013 at 2:19 pm

Agree with the recap, with one thing to add.

Strange, the discrepancy between Ferguson’s post-game analysis (i.e., a number of tired players on the pitch . . . ) and the substitutions he actually made—he didn’t remove any of the players he identified as weary.

For me it reiterated what a riverboat gambler he can be when it comes to in-game tactics and the possibility of stealing a victory, especially in a cup game with the prospect of an unappetizing replay at Stamford Bridge. The interesting sub in this regard was Welbeck for Kagawa, at 2-2 with fifteen minutes to play. At that point Chelsea had long been dominating midfield. Kagawa hasn’t yet found a natural place in United’s system(s), but he was obviously taught classic principles of team play and has worked to make himself useful any way he can, which often means taking advantage of his energy and “showing” for teammates all over the pitch. Without him, United had few short options when they dispossessed Chelsea and were forced to barrel upfield, with no hope of running any clock. The only option Ferguson offered his side was victory (or defeat). Therefore: fortunate to draw.

Ian Shaw on March 11, 2013 at 5:15 pm

I was one of those dismayed to see Mikel replace Lampard, but it became clear that the move allowed Ramires to get forward well, so all credit to Benitez here.

I thought that bringing on Welbeck in place of Kagawa was an error. Chelsea were already dominating midfield, so an extra striker was unlikely to address this problem. Perhaps Sir Alex was relying on scoring on the counter attack.

Great Analysis as always, Michael.
Regarding fatigue, I feel that it affected Chelsea in the first half. Ramires wasn’t running around as we expected; there was little support for Ba and there weren’t many runs for Mata to play passes to in the first half.
I do feel Moses should have done more to cut into the center rather than stay in front of Evra, and his performance was bad because of a lack of effort (or tactical reasons) rather than low quality, even though Hazard is a better player.
In the second half, when Chelsea added more energy and attacking drive to their game,they dominated the middle and over-ran United, with heavy pressing and sheer numbers in the middle. Mikel coming on for Lampard reminds me of the sub Mancini made against Newcastle: a change that makes space for another player on the pitch who wasn’t directly affected by the sub (in this case Ramires) and that goal was made by Benitez (even if it was a counter-attack).
This isn’t the first time I’ll point out the lack of defensive awareness of the Ramires-Lampard combination in the middle. I mentioned it in the comments section of the CWC final analysis. They just left too much space in front of the defense for Corinthians to counter. In this game they weren’t compact enough.
+ I think Anderson should leave Man. Utd. Between the two games this week he would have added energy to the middle that would help them cope in the game, and the fact that he was overlooked for Welbeck in the game yesterday would be a bitter pill to swallow.
Sorry for the long “comment”.

11_giggsy_11 on March 12, 2013 at 1:46 pm

I don’t think Ramires was suffering from fatigue, especially when you see his performance in the second half. He was more restrained in the first half because he was playing alongside Lampard, so he had to play more conservatively. But when Mikel came on, it allowed Ramires a lot more freedom and he certainly wasn’t fatigued in the second half. He didn’t even play against Steaua I think. Rafa’s releasing of Ramires in the second half was a big factor in their CM improvement in the second half.

Anderson can barely last a whole game himself, even if rested for a week. The boy has a big problem in lasting games and performing well at the same time. Me thinks the end at United is coming for him. A fan of his style and when he is performing well but time and time again, the question marks over his fitness and his ability to play well over a 90 minute period keep coming to the fore. Not had it all his way with injuries and how he takes a while to get going after injuries but between them, although he has done well at times, the sloppiness and inability to finish games well is still there.

Though Ferguson should have rotated Cleverley for Anderson. Cleverley not as bad as Anderson when it comes to finishing games well, he also has a problem with fading in latter parts of games. After playing against Real, there was always a good chance of him fading in the weekend’s game. Beyond Anderson, oldies Scholes and Giggsy, makeshift Jones, United do not have the right depth at CM. Only Carrick is playing in his peak years, whereas the other are still learning (Cleverley & Ando), past it (Scholes & Giggs(though he simply never has been a good 2-man CM player)) or occasional CM players(Jones). United definitely to bring in someone in the summer for CM, even as back up.

I’m not particular about Ramires, but I do feel that he ran a bit less than expected in the 1st half. Maybe its because of Lampard that he wasn’t running as much. But Lampard did play against Steua…

Anonymous on March 13, 2013 at 10:22 pm

I’m not sure what you trying to get at about Lampard playing against Steaua, in relation to Ramires playing more conservatively in the first half. Anytime I’ve seen Ramires play alongside Lampard, Ramires almost always plays safe and doesn’t go box to box too much. Only, when alongside the far more deeper and defensive minded Mikel, does Ramires play box to box.

Andrew on March 11, 2013 at 9:16 pm

Benitez made a major mistake in bringing on Torres. Ba was doing quite well, and Torres is of course in dreadful form. Torres lazily jogged about, didn’t go for loose balls, and had a golden opportunity to finish the game off just outside the box and hit a pathetic shot right at the keeper.

Clarence on March 11, 2013 at 9:49 pm

The second half formation is definitely Chelsea best XI. It is baffling to see Benitez does not start Mikel at the first place, who is the ONLY defensive midfielder of Chelsea. Moses is much more inferior to Hazard too.

11_giggsy_11 on March 12, 2013 at 1:50 pm

I think it was a case of rotation as to why Mikel didn’t start the game. Rafa likes to rotate. So Rafa probably does see his importance but also sees the importance of bringing some fresh players into the team too.

Anonymous on March 12, 2013 at 1:44 pm

I found it interesting that in both games on that day, liverpool and chelsea when trailing actually went for what would generally be regarded as ‘defensive’ substitutions. Obi Mikel in place of Lampard, Allen in place of Coutinho…yet both of them proved to be masterstrokes from Benitez and Brenden Rodgers. The ‘defensive’ substitutions actually helped the trailing teams to get a grasp on the matches and bring out favorable results in the end.

Robert on March 12, 2013 at 5:54 pm

Yes, I am impressed with Benitez but not with Rodgers. Spurs gave away the match at Anfield and Rodgers’ substitutions had little to do with the result. Clearly Mikel’s introduction played a big part and I wonder what Chelsea fans will say now about two of their biggest scapegoats.

If you are paying attention to learn Web optimization techniques then you have to read this piece of writing, I am sure you will obtain much more from this piece of writing concerning Search engine optimization. christian louboutin shoes free shipping http://cheapchristianlouboutinshoesales.webs.com

I discovered your weblog web page on google and check a couple of of your early posts. Continue to keep up the quite superb operate. I just further up your RSS feed to my MSN News Reader. Seeking forward to reading much more from you later on!

Can I just say what a relief to acquire an individual who essentially knows what theyre talking about on the internet. You absolutely know easy methods to bring an problem to light and make it critical. Even more consumers really need to read this and know this side of the story. I cant think youre not more preferred mainly because you unquestionably have the gift.